MADHUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third visit of the petitioner to this Court for the same grievance. In this round, the challenge is made to the order dated 17-11-2017 whereby the petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Director (Finance) was rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the admitted facts between the parties are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the M.P. Public Service Commission (P.S.C.), petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Assistant Director (Finance). In the select list dated 25-06-2016, the petitioner's name finds place. Below the name of petitioner in the select list, names of Shri Ganesh Kumar and Shri Vinod Kumar Shrivastava find place. The respondents appointed said Shri Ganesh Kumar and Shri Vinod Kumar Shrivastava by order dated 19-12-2016 (Annexure P/3) and 22-12-2016 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the selection of said persons, who were below him in the select list, filed WP. No.608/17, which was disposed of on 13-01-2017 by directing the respondents to decide the representation. In turn, the respondents passed the order dated 30-03-2017 (Annexure P/9) and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner again filed WP. No.5150/17, which was decided on 22-09-2017. This Court after taking note of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in regard to judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as Rule 6 of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1961'). The respondents passed the impugned order dated 17-11-2017 and opined that it will not be in public interest to appoint the petitioner on the said post.

(3.) Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the impugned order by contending that (i) when petitioner submitted his candidature for the said post, he was not facing any criminal proceedings. The FIRs were lodged against him at a later point of time. Soon thereafter, he apprised the department about lodging of said FIRs. Thus, there was no suppression of fact by the petitioner about FIRs/criminal cases. (ii) the impugned order is not in consonance with the dicta of Avtar Singh (supra); and (iii) the respondents have not considered the candidature in the light of Rule 6 of Rules of 1961. There is no embargo in appointing the petitioner because of filing of challans. Reliance is also placed on Rule 8(3)(a) of M.P. State Services Rules, 2015 for the same purpose (Annexure P/17) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2015').